I’ve written before about the wrongful conviction of the late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens just before the 2008 election, and how it changed history:

So many things had to go wrong for Obamacare to evade a Senate filibuster. Arlen Specter had to switch parties. Al Franken had to pull out a slight victory. And Senator Ted Stevens needed to lose reelection just after being convicted of corruption.

If any one of those had not happened, we would not have Obamacare.

In the Stevens case, the conviction was overturned later for prosecutorial misconduct. But the election results stood.

The judge who presided over the Stevens trial appointed Henry F. Schuelke to investigate the prosecutors who handled the case. Schuelke’s 524-page report, which was unsealed this week, paints a picture of a prosecution team so hampered by infighting that disgruntled attorneys cut corners by assigning document-review duties to FBI and IRS agents who were left largely unsupervised. Crucial information — including the fact that trial witness Bill Allen had once bribed a child prostitute, whom he’d had a relationship with, to commit perjury, and that the home repairs in question were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than originally alleged — was never given to Stevens’ defense team.

The Justice Department has concluded its own investigation, and has given a slap on the wrist to two of the supervising attorney’s involved, with minimal suspensions:

The Justice Department has found that two prosecutors involved in the botched 2008 corruption trial of Senator Ted Stevens engaged in “reckless professional misconduct,” but it stopped short of firing the men, saying their mistakes were not intentional.

In a cover letter to a 672-page report provided to Congress on Thursday, alongside additional attachments and findings, the Justice Department said the two prosecutors would be suspended without pay — Joseph Bottini for 40 days, and James Goeke for 15 days….

There was at least one major difference, however: the special prosecutor concluded that Mr. Bottini and Mr. Goeke had intentionally withheld evidence, while the Justice Department investigation found that their mistakes — while showing reckless disregard for their disclosure obligations — were not deliberate.

As the letter linked in the quote indicated, the attorneys were deemed part of “civil service” and therefore were protected from firing except upon the most egregious circumstances, which apparently does not included recklessly convicting a sitting United States Senator up for reelection.

Comments

In the law, “reckless” does not mean you screwed up…human error…ordinary negligence. I means you screwed up intentionally, or with callous disregard to the rights of someone. Or, in this case, to your oath of office.

But this is the Holder DOJ. That man…by himself…is reason enough to get rid of Pres. Choom-a-rang.

In most jurisdictions, there is such a thing as “attorney immunity”. For rather good reasons, you cannot sue an attorney for what they do in litigation.

There ARE exceptions. I have sued other attorneys (which is REALLY not a popular thing to do). Interestingly, most judges in my experience are not aware of the exceptions to the “attorney immunity” umbrella.

Someone with more knowledge of Federal criminal procedure would have to answer beyond this.

I’ve read you right as a pseudo-conservative from the first time I ever read your postings…

Don’t try moonbat tactics to fray the topic on me, in your ever-so zealous efforts to be first poster and then control the direction of debate, you’ve exposed yourself as a supporter of big government statism…

You say crazy stuff, like the most regulated industries in America, Healthcare and Insurance could be (w/o political repercussion) easily “blank page” reformed “like the tax code” but in your own words implied these lawyers who’ve committed ““reckless professional misconduct” MEANS intentional” shouldn’t be fired because they’re just a couple of bad apples, implied they should retain their jobs because there are good “civil servants” like J. Christian Adams

listen up fruitcake, now that you mention it I’ve avoided whole threads, moved on and not challenged (in the name of promoting a harmonious atmosphere) what you’ve posted. I believe you have a right to your opinion even though most times its complete nonsense.

and I’ve asked/warned you to keep a wide berth while I was around, I admittedly have a low tolerance for blunt skull asininery such as yours.

There are many pledges/plans to overhaul the tax code, the proverbial “blank page” to eliminate corporate welfare loopholes, reduce individual income tax rates across the board, reduce corporate tax, eliminate death or federal estate tax, and cut down the size of IRS.

it was your summation that this process could be done to the most regulated industries in America, “blank page” reform of one sixth of the economy… you proposed this ignorant plan in an easy-peazy “without political repercussion” manner.

I don’t need to post he link to your words because you know you said it and I have no desire to be drawn into moonbat debate.

anyway, I never said YOU made the statement that “ANY of that would be “easy” or “without political repercussion”.”

Those were my words in characterization of your ignorant proposal…
so moonbat debate FAIL.

look jackass, I’ve been very tolerant of your insinuations that I’m a liar, with the personal attack characterizations of confused, hateful, delusional and rambling.
(more proof you’re just a leftists twat masquerading as a conservative and that you never had a standpoint to defend)

Sad when you see someone so mean and crazy they cannot tell the truth.

“You say crazy stuff, like the most regulated industries in America, Healthcare and Insurance could be (w/o political repercussion) easily “blank page” reformed “like the tax code” but in your own words implied…”

But…

“I never said YOU made the statement that “ANY of that would be “easy” or “without political repercussion”.

Just sad. And why? Because I provided some information you took as a put-down, but which was totally neutral.

Then when I described your asinine “blank page” proposal of reform for one sixth of the economy as something you implied was w/o political fallout and as easy as the MANY tax code reform proposals… you tried to fray the topic, try to put the burden of proof -on me- or else I was a liar … total moonbat debate tactic.

Now you’re back to defendING these dirtbag lawyers again and saying your comment was innocent neutral information.
… all this peppered with personal attack.

I’M CONVINCED YOUR WHOLE MIND IS A “BLANK PAGE” AND EVEN YOU’RE NOT SURE WHATS GOING TO COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH NEXT.

7. You seem a very delicate personality. Instead of dealing with ideas directly, you warn me to “stay away”. That seems very insecure. I am not a threat to you. But you sure seem to take me for one…hence your SCREAMING at me.

8. When I say something mistaken, I am not personally challenged when someone provides information from which I may learn. I appreciate the correction.

9. I often state things in short, declarative statements. I am a radical. I think in terms of the “root” problem. Some of what I say is stated in very stark, simple terms. That NEVER implies it would be easy to effect.

10. I could not, and have never wished to try to, drive comments on any thread any particular way. Indeed, part of my motive here is to state ideas, and open them to criticism. This is my idea of forensic debate. Join me.

Nice try, the fact that you stated that “since they (some) tend NOT to be hacks and toadies” they deserve civil service protection from firing except upon the most egregious circumstances which you yourself declared these lawyers acted “reckless professional misconduct” MEANS intentional.”

Bottom line is that you’re a moonbat, you’re supportive of big government statism.

I’m done with you, you’re now trying to muddy the water and vindicate yourself through yet another moonbat tactic of excessive bloviation.
In fact, I was done with you @ GFY, you podunk POS.

“You seem a very delicate personality. Instead of dealing with ideas directly, you warn me to “stay away”.

I warned you to keep a wide berth simply because you’re a moonbat… I have a low tolerance for libtardism and pointedly your ideas are crap.
Now I’ll add that you’re a pretty effeminate dude, probably from years of being a 60’s hippie baker.

I remember when Ragis blamed the public school system, brainwashed him and kept him a captive liberal for years.

man up, you’re a libtard through and through due to your own personal failings… you’ve never held any valid conservative beliefs, principles or values for any period of time in your life, and now you masquerade as a pseudo-conservative, you over-compensate fo the failings and your need for acceptance by forcing your particular “moonbat” POV in your ever-so zealous efforts to be first poster and then control the direction of debate.

A Justice Department lawyer under investigation for possible misconduct in the prosecution of former senator Ted Stevens of Alaska committed suicide over the weekend, the law firm representing him confirmed.

Nicholas A. Marsh, 37, was one of several Justice lawyers under investigation by a special prosecutor for possible legal improprieties that last year led a judge to vacate Stevens’s conviction in a corruption case.

If a sitting senator is not safe from the gross abuse of granted power, what hope is there for the people they serve? So, this is why so many of our elected representatives go along to get along.

The market model is the optimal model in both economics and politics. It is a model derived from the natural world that recognizes the dynamic of competing interests when there are finitely accessible resources and so many who dream of instant gratification.

As for the Justice Department, they are a progressive failure with Holder at the helm. Apparently, he likes to play games, and, unfortunately, he is not alone.

[…] » Slap on wrist for prosecutors who changed history by wrongfully convicting Ted Stevens – Le… I’ve written before about the wrongful conviction of the late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens just before the 2008 election, and how it changed history: So many things had to go wrong for Obamacare to evade a Senate filibuster. Arlen Specter had to switch parties. Al Franken had to pull out a slight victory. And Senator Ted Stevens needed to lose reelection just after being convicted of corruption. […]

[…] Obamacare received a crucial vote in the Senate. As it turns out, Stevens was wrongfully convicted. Legal Insurrection has the background, as well as the story about how the prosecutors whose misconduct set it all in […]

Many GOP establishment, conservatives and Tea Party people abandoned Ted Stevens who although was a prolific earmarker, he was also an effective legislator for the people of the State of Alaska.
Alaska is a unique state where 65% is federal land, such a loss of tax base, the vast expanse requires the kind of leadership Ted Stevens brought to the table.

I have a belief that the Tea Party is being woefully ignorant with its strict policy of booting out the old guard, people they believe are out of touch and incapable of changing along with the times.
This mess took a long time to create and its going to take a long time to fix, and after all its my belief that the GOP has a serious problem of being out maneuvered by the democrats .. that’s one of my reasonds for supporting Newt.

I was brokenhearted over this entire debacle.
” Uncle Ted” came down from the mountain to give me a hand when I needed it. He did his job, and lived the life of an advocate of the Citizens of Alaska. His interest’s were always secondary.
Begich and the Democrats had to swing the power of the Senate to gain control. They got the job done.
For this, I have no respect.
My loss is personal.
I cannot be objective in this.
Uncle Ted is sorely missed.